I may have been on this earth for only twenty-five short years, but in many ways I consider myself to be very old-fashioned. My aversion to change solely for the sake of change is a good example, and what better way to prove my point than to take a critical look at many current carmakers’ discontinuation of proven, long-lived engines and in favor of new ones developed at great expense?

While I won’t go as far as saying that something along the lines of a Ford Flathead V8 would be a feasible alternative to the modern V8 (as cool as it would be to see one with modern fuel delivery and ignition systems), I’ve noticed that in the past few years we’ve seen a good number of venerable engine lines being dumped after giving decades of good, reliable service. If we go back about six years, to around 2008 (give or take a few years in either direction), we can see how many examples have been lost quite recently.

Why did I decide to go with ’08 as a reference point, you ask? The answers a simple one. 2008 was the last
year that one could purchase a car with the Buick 3800. As some of you already know, this unit can trace its history all the way back to Buick’s innovative all aluminum 215 V8, which first saw production in GM’s new for 1961 “Senior Compact” cars. It didn’t take long before it was decided that they would cast the block in iron and chop two cylinders off as a cheaper alternative. A rather crude and rough-running engine initially, it went through several major updates before it finally became known as the 3800, an engine that managed to hold its own against the influx of 24-valve quad-cam competitors over the past twenty-five years (even winning a few awards in the process).

It goes without saying that the Saab B/H engines also deserve recognition in this area. The B engine was born when Saab brought production of the unit that was initially used in the early 99 (not to mention several Triumph models, including the 16v Dolomite Sprint) in-house while making durability improvements. Launched in the 1972 Saab 99, it would enjoy a lengthy history, courtesy of constant refinements such as multivalve heads, turbocharging, displacement increases, state-of-the-art engine management and balance shafts, making it one of the most refined four cylinders of its time (as an owner of a ’96 Saab 900S, I can vouch for its smoothness and durability). You could purchase a new Saab with this engine right up until 2010, when the original 9-5 finally ended production after thirteen years. Labeled as the B235 by Saab, it produced 260 turbocharged horsepower from only 2.3 liters in its final iteration.

Remember the Mazda-designed diesel engines used in the Ford Escort and Tempo (and briefly, the 626) in the early-mid 80’s? It’s known in Mazda Circles as the RF engine, which is essentially a diesel version of their gasoline F-block seen in everything from the B2000/B2200 all the way to the hot 88-92 Probe GT Turbo.

Making around 60 horsepower in the Tempo/Escort, it was far from quick (keep in mind, however that the original CVH in the ’81 Escort made all of 68 horsepower) but it was known to be an extremely bomb-proof motor. Some non-US versions of the engine even used a Comprex pressure-wave supercharger that deserves a CC write-up in itself. The engine now uses modern technology such as a sixteen-valve head, variable geometry turbocharger, and direct injection and is currently called the MZR-CD. It is only now being phased out in favor of the new SkyActiv-D line. It’d be a unique project for someone to drop an MZR-CD into an ’84 Tempo.

Another honorable mention for a design that stood the test of time during this era includes GM’s “High Value V6” which can be traced back to the sixty-degree V6 launched in the X-cars. Later models added variable valve timing (and were the first pushrod engines to feature this technology). The High Value was last seen powering the Chevrolet Impala for the 2011 model year, before GM’s “High Feature” V6 replaced it across the board. It should also be noted that the engine also spawned Turbocharged and even DOHC 24-valve versions, but they never really seemed to catch on as much as their more conventional siblings.

I find it to be truly amazing how long a good engine design can last (and even more amazing how an engine be transformed from boat anchor to powerhouse by the end of its run), but it seems that the days of keeping a design around and perfecting it over time are over. All of the previously mentioned engines have either been since discontinued, or are on their way out the door. Six years can result in huge change in the automotive world and these days, you’d be hard-pressed to find an engine design older than ten years of age still being put into a new car.

There are, however, a few remaining examples that have made it all the way up to this point (and here’s where things begin get very weird). If you think that you’re looking at some odd version of Honda’s seventh generation Accord, then you’re absolutely correct. Produced by Chinese company BYD, it’s a pretty faithful rip-off from said car with some updates…with one major exception:

It’s powered by the a Mitsubishi 4G63. The 4G6x (also known as the Mitsubishi Sirius engine) was launched way back in 1979; the last car sold using this engine family in the US was the 2012 Mitsubishi Galant, and it still sees duty under the hood of the Brilliance BS6 (another Chinese car). Made famous in turbocharged twin-cam 4G63 form by cars such as the DSM coupes (Eclipse/Talon/Laser), the Galant VR-4, and the Lancer Evolution (I-IX), it’s easy to forget that essentially the same block was used in workaday carbureted 8-valve form (as seen in the original Colt Vista, the Mitsubishi Tredia, and the Mighty Max pickup/Dodge D50/Plymouth Arrow), then bored out to 2.4 liter 4G64/4G69 form (used in the 1989-2005 Sonata, 1985-1987 and 1994-2012 Galant), with even smaller 1.6/1.8 liter twin-cam versions used in the original Hyundai Elantra.

The beauty of sharing a common lineage is that a great deal of its parts are interchangeable between different versions, making upgrades/modifications pretty easy. Gaining things such as Mitsubishi’s MIVEC variable valve timing system, direct injection on some non-US models, and improved cylinder heads as time progressed, it was kept technologically fresh. Other then than their tendency to burn oil at higher mileages (it’s a Mitsubishi thing) and crank walk on certain 4G63 models, they were considered to be a durable design overall.

What you’re looking at here is a more Mitsubishi engineering, and the basic architecture of 4G15 engine as seen in a 1986 Hyundai Excel (also used in the Mirage/Colt/Summit in various states of tune, gaining 12-valve heads during the early 90s) is still in use today. Introduced in 1978 as a part of the 4G1x Orion family, it launched one year before the previously mentioned Sirius line. It’s also been placed in some very unlikely vehicles, including this one:

Here’s a Smart Forfour, which was only produced from 2004-2006, and was never available in the US. Based on the same platform at the Mitsubishi Colt, it made very good use of the Orion lineup, making up to 175hp from just 1.5 liters of displacement in the Brabus-tuned versions (over 2.5 times the power offered in the previously mentioned 86-89 Hyundai Excel).

The same basic engine is still being used in many cars today, such as the Chinese BYD F3 pictured above, another quite faithful rip-off by BYD, this time of the ’03-’08 Corolla.

So is it safe to assume at this point that Mitsubishi, with two very old engines currently seeing duty in various new automobiles, leads the way when it comes to keeping an old design around? More than likely yes, and with the financial issues that they’ve been struggling with over the past several years, it probably has a lot more to do with necessity rather than trying to prove some sort of point.

There is one more engine worth mentioning, and it’s the only one on this list that you can still purchase new in the US. You’ll find it at your local Volkswagen dealer under the hood of the Jetta S. Producing 115 from 2.0 liters, one overhead camshaft, and just eight valves, the “2.Slow” is truly a relic, one that can trace its ancestry back to the early ’70s. Is there any other eight-valve four cylinder even available in the US today? If so, I can’t think of one.

It’s ironic that VW had a sixteen valve, DOHC head for this very block as far back as the mid ’80s (the 20-valve Audi five-cylinders shared a similar design), yet the version which ended up outlasting all of the others was this one (which has had the same exact horsepower rating since at least the early 90s).

While I must admit that this particular engine is hopelessly outdated, I give VW credit for keeping it around this long. They have been especially stingy about investing in upgrades for this engine, when compared to GM’s and Mitsubishi’s efforts with their older engines but then, tooling must have been paid of for this engine a long time ago. Are there any other ancient engine out there which have your attention?

My daily driver is a 1990 Buick Reatta with the original 3800 engine, 149,000 miles has never even had the valve covers off and the mechanic who looks after oil changes, spark plugs, etc. Is amazed at how dry the bottom of the oil pan is and it does not use a measurable amount of oil between changes. Truly bulletproof.

Excellent article. I’m 41 yrs old, and yet I prefer cars built between 1949 and 1989 over anything built today. Unless an engine is diesel powered, I prefer the engine to have carburettors over fuel injection. I also prefer rear-wheel drive or old-school AWD over front-wheel drive.

As far as carburetion is concerned in my opinion, it’s fine in older, pre-emissions cars. I’d really hate to have to deal with miles of vacuum lines that usually came with the electronic feedback examples. My ’85 626 had such a setup, and everything emissions related was promptly ripped out to be replaced by a simple Weber 32/36. Really woke the car up.

The 1988 Mazda 626 2 litre diesel imported ex-Japan as a used vehicle was fitted allegedly with a Swiss-made supercharger unit with quite a large intercooler. It was an engine with a short life in NZ as new owners would change the oil and find a loss of compression so bad the engine wouldn’t fire anymore. The story was that Japanese owners never serviced their vehicles and the carbon and sludge build-up behind the rings is what kept them going. With new high detergent oil circulating it wasn’t too long before the crud was dissolved and dispersed leaving the ‘thin’ low friction (weak?) rings unable to retain compression.. .. so they quickly picked up a very poor reputation for reliability here.

Same here. Its first US appearance was in the ’73 Audi Fox. I had one in my ’78 Scirocco and at the time it was the smoothest 4-cyl. you could buy. Later I experienced it with A/T in a 1994-ish Jetta and thought it was refined and torquey.

It’s terrible; past 3,500 rpm, nothing happens. Once the nearly 3,000 lb 1999s came out, it was pretty hopeless. They all had low gearing too; top gear in both the stick and the auto amounted to 20 mph/1000 rpm (equivalent to a non-VTEC Integra, shorter than a Mini Cooper–but those had top end pull). So you had to drive it like a diesel around town in order to be impressed in any capacity.

Low gearing plus low torque peak equals no fun without any top end verve.

You did drive it like a diesel in the city, it was really torquey compared to the 16-valvers that were all the rage at the time. Those felt way flatter than the VW with an A/T. The engine felt very different depending on its displacement, bore and stroke which changed many times. My Scirocco had the short stroke 1.5 and was a zingy little demon. The 2.0L had a long stroke, and felt like it.

Amen, Perry. I loathed driving my first girlfriend’s ’87 Jetta Wolfsburg Edition with a piddling 85 horsepower and lackluster three speed auto. Full throttle it would upshift at a whopping 4,200 RPM, and cruising with 4,000 Revs on the tach at 80 mph is no one’s idea of relaxation.

FWIW, her father (a mechanic) had a brief flirtation with a 91 Shadow and offered her the choice of keeping it and selling the Jetta. Of course she kept the Jetta. Pity. Say what you will about the P-bodies, but that Shadow felt like a Lexus compared to the Jetta.

From an ecological point of view, we can’t get these antique engine
designs out of the modern supply chain fast enough.
We must drive the technology forward for modern uses and wide
applications. Restore the old stuff for your own use, if you like it.

I was living in Australia when the Alloytec replaced the 3800 in the Holden Commodore to great fanfare from GM. The consensus seemed to be that despite the manfacturer’s claims, it really didn’t give notably better MPG (or whatever they call it down under) in real world conditions.

And of course, it was unproven from a durability standpoint, and lack of durability can send cars to the scrapyard early, which in theory causes more new cars to be built, which is terrible for the environment.

I rented a Alloytech Holden in QLD, hugely unimpressed no torque low down it couldnt hold top gear in cruise control on the undulating Bruce highway at 110, convinced me I wouldnt be buying one did average 7L/100kms highway which wasnt bad but gutless for overtaking, prefer the massive mileage 3800 VR I had many moons back.

My experience with the 3800 is limited to rented Commodores, but everyone I drove had a strange vibration in the drivetrain when changing from second to third (auto). This was quite well known and it was often attributed to a poor matching of the engine and transmission. As I recall,nit was not sorted until the new engine.

Well the 3800 was significantly revised multiple times since it began life as the odd fire V6. So while the displacement ran for many years and it still shared the push rod architecture, bore, stroke and bore spacing pretty much everything changed at least once or twice over the years.

This I know, but many will still look at the latest versions as antique engines, even though from an ecological point that the tree huggers like to take, they are one of the cleanest made at that time.

I didn’t think he WAS trying to take a side. I’m assuming his point (which is well taken) is that it’s a grandfather’s ax kind of situation: so little on the late 3800 actually carries over from the earlier AMC and Buick V-6s that asking whether it’s even the same engine becomes a complex philosophical question.

Eric VanBuren

Posted July 28, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Aaron hit it pretty close. However unlike Grandpa’s axe that has went through 7 handles and 2 blades If you were to show it to Grandpa he’d be likely to say “yeah that’s my axe. If you were to show him a final version of the 3800 I doubt he’d say “I had one of those in my 62 Special”. I doubt that there is an engine that has been transformed so dramatically over its lifespan.

Lee Wilcox

Posted July 28, 2014 at 8:23 PM

I think the windsor ford is in the same ballpark. From the 260, and something tells me there was one before that, to the 5.0 and 5.8 EFI models. I think the mustang needs the same credit as the GNX as high tech hot rods.

Eric VanBuren

Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:02 PM

Lee, there was a 221 version of the small block Ford in 62-63 and the 255 in the 80’s

The Nissan VQ goes back to around ’94 or so. It’s first release in the US was for the ’95 Maxima. The 89-94 Maxima’s V6 was a part of the VG family, another engine that lasted for quite a while. (Roughly 84-2002 in US applications)

Wonder how new the engine in the Diesel Jetta is that is if it is still sold in the U.S. I also wonder about the engines in the GM full sized vans and pickups as well as the Ford pickups. I was surprised when Chrysler stopped making the 3.3 Litre.

Been told the 2,4 Litre in my 03 Caravan is a good engine thought it is somewhat underpowered and I need to look up the history of that engine. We will have to see how these new engines do.

The Chevy 4.3l V6 was still around up until a year or two ago, in fact it may still be in use for the fullsize vans (pickups got an all-new 4.3l V6 last year). That engine dates back to around 1978 or so, but it was derived from the classic SBC V8 that goes back to 1955.

That engine lived a weird life. Started off in very sad shape, an anemic replacement for the old Stovebolt six in the downsized A-bodies, was improved significantly throughout the 80s and early 90s eventually becoming respectably powerful and durable, had its finest hour as a turbocharged monster under the hood of GMC Syclone/Typhoons… and then received virtually no updates for the last 20 years or so of its existence.

True, once they got “Vortec-ed” in 1996, they did jack to the 4.3, its also interesting as one of those engines that has crossed over through it’s life from exclusively cars to exclusively trucks.

Except for being in trucks, the Buick 3.8 has an interesting history, if you consider that it has been carbureted, fuel injected, turbocharged, supercharged, FWD, RWD, increased to 4.1and decreased to 3.2 and 3.3L in displacement, crazy.

In fact the disappearance of unstoppable indirect injection diesels is generally disappointing – that and the fact it seems impossible to get a diesel nowadays which isn’t riddled with liabilities such as fragile and ludicrously expensive injectors, dual mass flywheel etc.

I agree. It’ll be interesting to see how well the new crop of modern diesels will hold up, but I seriously doubt that they’ll be as indestructible as those old indirect injected diesels were. There’s simply way too much to go wrong now.

A friend in Oz claimed the 4.0 straight six in my ’97 Falcon had basically the same block as a 60s Mustang engine. No idea how true that was, but there did seem to be a great deal of continuity in the Aussie Ford sixes.

With the end of production of the Hindustan Ambassador, I wonder if they were still using the BMC B series engine? If so, that was a pretty long run.

That’s basically true; the 170/200 CID I6’s in the Mustang (from the beginning) were also used in Australia. There was a 250 CID version of this engine as well, which is the 200 with a much longer stroke crank. After these engines were phased out in North America, Ford of Australia continued to develop them, eventually designing cross flow heads and changing to an overhead cam. I have no idea of when (if ever) Ford of Australia quit using the I6. For North American use Ford designed another I6 (mostly for trucks/vans) that displaced 240 & 300 cubic inches. The 300 version is still prized for its abundant torque and durability. I’m sure these were the last inline sixes that Ford used before switching to a V6 layout.

Ford Australia still uses a straight six in the Falcon, though I believe it’s quite different to the one in my car, I guess it may share something with it. They now offer an Ecoboost turbo four also, and of course a V8.

One of the reasons I bought my EL Falcon was the fact the Falcon is the default taxi/cop car and I was staying for a finite time so I wanted something tough, simple, cheap to repair. The aforementioned friend told me some Falcon taxis would manage 1 million km with no major engine work.

I believe the current “Barra” DOHC 24-valve six is basically a new head on your EL’s block. The 1988 EA introduced the SOHC sixes, which were supposedly a conversion of the old pushrod block. The Falcon six is sort of like grandfather’s axe – so many changes to the same basic design that probably the only thing carried over from 1960 to today would be the bore centres!

The 250 brought a taller-deck block, it was changed for the OHC head in 1987, had more revisions through the nineties eg addition of cross-bolted mains in 1998, again for the DOHC in 2002 and again I think in 2008 – and that is just the block.

On the other hand I gather you can fit the same starter to them all, and with the right engine mount bolt the newer engines into older cars. The DOHC is too bulky to go straight into early Falcons and there are a few other issues eg sump to sway bar or cross-member clearance depending on model.

The new Mitsu Mirage 3A92 three pot seems like a relic, introduced in 2003. It may have shared some history/architecture with the 1970’s Orion 4G series. Couldn’t find a reliable answer on the internets. Unlike the VW it does have have 16, er 12 valves.

I must comment that the Iron Duke had no business sticking around so long, being put in Buicks, Fieros and other semi-premium cars. It is supposedly still made as a Marine and industrial engine.

Well in defense of the Iron Duke, the last versions with timing chains (instead the the gears which always broke apart), balance shafts, and MFI were nowhere near as bad as the early examples.

Good point on the 3A92. I’ll have to do some digging. The 3A9x is all alloy vs iron for the Orion, which doesn’t really mean much since many manufacturers have used different materials for the same block.

Until a few years ago, you could get a Vortec I-6 in the Trailblazer and it’s variants. It’s a shame that engine had to die with the end of that platform and idiotic that GM didn’t engineer the Colorado/Canyon trucks to accept that engine. When they realized that the competition was killing it’s 5 cylinder,they plopped the 5.3 V8 into the trucks.To me, this seemed pointless.

Good point–what was its last use? I don’t think they use it in the F-series anymore. I think that lineup goes NA Six – Biturbo Ecoboost Six – 5.4 V8. It got squeezed out of the Mustang lineup by the 300 HP v6 on the one side and the new 5.0 on the other. Did the E-Series use it up to the end? Or did it die with the Panthers in 2011?

I just learned today about a Ford 6.2 gas V8 in its bigger trucks that I understand to be a modification of the Coyote. A big old stupid iron block, even. Good for Ford, who understands that truck customers want durability, not flash.

Eric VanBuren

Posted July 28, 2014 at 6:32 PM

The 6.2 came before the 5.0 and while they share some similarities like the cross bolted Y block architecture and bellhousing pattern used on all modulars except the first 4.6, it has a much wider bore spacing and only 2v per cyl. So it is really considered a new engine only slightly related to the modular and Coyote. The 5.0 on the other hand shares a lot more with the modular down to having the engine mounting bosses in the same location relative to each other and the bellhousing. That means that you can bolt a 5.0 into a vehicle that came with a 4.6 or 5.4 using your existing engine mounts and transmission. Now hooking up the exhaust and a computer to run it is an entirely different story.

Jason Shafer

Posted July 29, 2014 at 10:42 AM

I have driven a few F-250s with the 6.2; delightful engine. It came about in ’10 or ’11, I believe.

The 5.0 would be the way to go since its footprint is closer to that of the 4.6 and the 4.6 will fit into the box chassis. Before the 4.6 was released to the public it did its real world durability testing in box Panther fleets racking up a few million miles there. The 6.2 is longer, wider and taller.

The E series has a little more life left in it though only in cab and chassis and stripped chassis form where the 5.4 is the base engine depending on series. The V10 which is part of the modular family will live on for at least a few more years in surviving versions of the Econoline, F53, F59 and F450 C&C (not pickup), F550, F650 and F750.

Hear hear. My F-150 has 215,000 miles on the Romeo 4.6, and it’s still a strong enough, smooth, reliable beast. Still pulls 18 at 75mph even with the AC blasting (it’s a 4×4 super cab), and while it won’t win many races, it has plenty of power.

Great motors. My dad has a F-150 with one, and it’s never had an issue – aside from an odd oil leak, and my Mom’s Mustang GT has almost 200,000 in-city miles but she refuses to replace it.

Ford Oz has just released pics of the last ever Aussie Falcon …shows a Mustang-like power bulge over the engine ! Looks GOOD !! ..still retains the old AU ‘edge’ rounded door frames and roofline though.. but THIS will be the ultimate last ever I6 Falcon to own as a heritage vehicle I would say.. ..

Not just for regulatory reasons, today’s customers expect higher and higher efficiency from their engines. Meaning the combination of power, torque, mileage and weight. I’m very impressed by what engineers have been able to do. They’ve doubled and tripled it. Today’s fours outdo many of the old V8s.

A manufacturer has a lot of money and experience invested in a particular engine family. If they can get the numbers they need on the existing platform, then they will do it. If they can’t, and maybe the tooling has reached the end of its life, that opens the door to the next generation of engine. It always boils down to hard numbers of cost and results.

I agree. Auto manufacturers won’t invest in a new engine family unless it meets some criteria such as being less expensive to produce, offers a higher output for its size, or meets more strict emissions standards.

A really fabulous old-school engine that comes to mind is the “redblock” series of motors manufactured and used by Volvo for many years.

First used in the 1961 P1800 and lasting all the way through to the last 940s sold in the U.S. in 1995, these were the engines that really cemented Volvo’s reputation in the U.S. The first iteration of the redblock was the B18, a pushrod unit that made just 115 hp using twin SU carburetors, yet was strong enough to rev all the way past 7000 rpm without causing serious damage. To prove this engine’s extremely stout durability, it is a B18 that is in Irv Gordon’s 1966 P1800 – as you may know, that car is the highest-mileage car in the world, with well over 3 million miles. I suspect its simplicity is what led to it lasting all these years and miles.

The last redblocks were sold in 1995 – at least for the U.S. market – when the 940 made its final appearance. By then the B230Fs were single overhead-cam units with eight valves and a timing belt, rather than the old pushrod/timing gear design utilized by its predecessors, the B18 and B20. The 940 could be bought in both naturally-aspirated and turbocharged forms, but if I was advising someone to buy a Volvo I would recommend the non-turbo for the easier maintenance. I have a B230F in my 1991 740 that has close to 200k miles on it and the head has never been off.

The redblock is a good example of WHY some old engines stop being made. When they tried updating it with twin cams and balance shafts, so many compromises had to be made for it to be worthwhile, much as the GM sixty degree V6 (though that engine was new enough to have less of an excuse).

You’ll find it at your local Volkswagen dealer under the hood of the Jetta S. Producing 115 from 2.0 liters, one overhead camshaft, and just eight valves, the “2.Slow” is truly a relic,

2.slow indeed. I drove a Jetta S with an auto last winter. What is VW thinking? If the engine laboring when asked for the slightest bit of acceleration doesn’t put you off, the abrupt and harsh downshifts of the trans should scare you away.

Meanwhile, VW has retired the much more satisfactory 2.5 5 cylinder. It doesn’t make terribly apealing sounds, but it hauls my wagon around quite well. Of course, the 2.5 was never noted for fuel efficiency, so it’s replacement, a new 1.8T, has drawn rave reviews for both better torque and better efficiency.

There’s a part of me that wants a Jetta S just for the simplicity of the engine design. It’s kind of refreshing, in a way. I mean, even my 18-year-old Saab has balance shafts and a DOHC 16v head…none of which the 2.0 Jetta S has in 2014.

I drove a 2015 Golf on the weekend and the 1.8 is a real barn-burner except for one thing: the first half centimeter of accelerator travel does nil. It is a bit weird and I got used it, but it is strange in the beginning.

That said, VW turbo four bangers are fantastic, they make incredible torque at all over the rev range, making them feel much more powerful than they are. The 2015 Golf accelerated very smartly indeed.

I drove a 2015 Golf on the weekend and the 1.8 is a real barn-burner except for one thing: the first half centimeter of accelerator travel does nil.

When I first test drove my Jetta, with the 2.5 5 cylinder, at the dealer, I noticed the throttle lag that several magazine road tests have mentioned. After a few months and a few thousand miles of driving it, I don’t notice the lag anymore. I figure either I just got used to it, or the engine management system has made some adjustment that cut the lag.

That said, VW turbo four bangers are fantastic

All the road testers agree it’s a huge improvement over the 5, but there are engineering details that give me the willies, like the exhaust manifold being built into the head, two cooling systems and too water pumps (one belt driven, one electric), with an equalization valve between the systems. Hate to think what would happen to that head if the engineers didn’t get their sums right about heat loads.

The old 5 was pretty conventional, but it had a fatal flaw the first couple years: the timing chain tensioner didn’t do it’s thing very well, the chain guides wore fast and the chain stretched. Add it all up and the chain gets slack enough to jump on the sprocket and the pistons hit the valves.

I don’t want to be the product tester for VW, since that is not the safest of vocations when one is using one’s own money. That said, modern engine design is pretty advanced. For instance, the new motor has only four crankshaft counterweights and smaller main bearings. It’s done by precision matching everything. VW can do hit-tech no problem since it has enormous sales volumes to pay for it but time will tell on the new 1.8.

I also tried out a 2010 Passat with the 2.0 turbo and this engine certainly should be on the Great Engine list. It makes loads of lusty torque all over the rev range and the DSG is simply brilliant. It’s a tremendously good powertrain. The car is very light on its feet and has brilliant brakes and steering. I liked it so much I was about to buy it until I found the price they quoted at the stealership was $3000 more than the internet price!

Steve

Posted July 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM

I don’t want to be the product tester for VW,

That’s what I told the salesman at the VW dealer: I considered waiting for a 15 to get the 1.8T, but didn’t want to be a beta tester.

VW can do hit-tech no problem since it has enormous sales volumes to pay for it but time will tell on the new 1.8.

Ford can attempt high tech too. Found out the DOHC 3.5 in my Taurus X had the water pump in the valley running off the timing chain, which has two downsides: the pump cost a fortune to replace, and, sometimes, when the pump starts leaking, coolant gets into the oil and if it isn’t corrected pronto, you have an $8,000 bill for a new engine.

I have to confess I had no idea VW was still building this engine, and that it still makes the same 115HP from 20 years ago is total madness!

Speaking of long-lived engines, the VW boxer lasted from the first KdF-Wagen in 1938 up until the final (aircooled) Brazilian Type 2 in 2005. I think that’s likely the longest production run for anything, and one that will never be matched!

The impressive thing is to keep the same 2v sohc layout and still pass ever-stricter emissions. There must have been some refinements over the years, but there is no doubt that layout has significant cost advantages. It is a stark comparison to the last Golf I drove, with a 1.4 TSi (turbo and supercharger, direct injection) and with a 7sp DSG – oh boy the potential for big repair bills when that stuff ages!

The Ford modular engine is a little newer and seems to be hanging on in trucks and the Mustang, at least in some forms quite different from the original 4.6 of the early 90s.

And like someone else, I was saddened to see the end of the Chrysler 3.3/3.8. Another “modern” engine that was fairly old-school, it had developed early on into one of the toughest powerplants in service. In fact, when I was looking for a minivan in 2011, I disqualified the Chryslers due to the 3.8 having been axed. The 3.6 looked good at the outset, but Chrysler’s more modern engine efforts have been quite uneven.

Nope, nothing in common. The 3.3 and 3.8 were 60′ pushrod engines designed for such use, meaning god low end torque and low service requirements. They were quite hard to kill and I only ever saw one dead, having gone 70,000 km without an oil change.

The OHC designs started for the 1993 LH cars in 3.5 litre form and weren’t bad at all and were quite powerful for their day. The 4.0 is directly based on it.

The 2.7 and 3.2 were roughly based on the 3.5 but shared little more than bore centres.

Oh, I always thought that they were roughly OHC versions of the 3.3/3.8. I got that information from Allpar: “The 3.5 liter V6 has its roots in the 3.3 liter V6, launched in 1990; first used in the new LH platform, it was the basis of the 2.7 and 3.2 liter V6 engines. The 3.5 was Chrysler’s premium V6 engine for cars for most of its long life, with its leadership ending only when the Pentastar V6 became available in the 2011 models.”

Brenden Blanding

Posted July 28, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Wikipedia seems to confirm this also: “The single overhead cam V6 introduced in 1993 was a major advancement for Chrysler. It was derived from Chrysler’s first homegrown front-wheel drive V6, the Chrysler 3.3 engine. The SOHC V6 has been replaced by the Chrysler Pentastar engine.”

“This 3,518 cc (3.518 L; 214.7 cu in) engine was a version of the 3.3 but with a larger bore of 96 mm and the important addition of overhead cams.”

Granted, those sources could be incorrect. You never know with the internet.

David McMurray

Posted July 28, 2014 at 5:19 PM

My information is from the MOPAR engine bible “Chrysler Engines 1922-1998” (also includes Dodge back to 1914) by Chrysler engineer Willem L. Weertman. The pushrod 3.3/3.8 shared the LA 318’s bore centres so that was the design starting point. Bearing sizes are close but metric. The OHC 3.2/3.5 share the same bore spacings and bearing sizes as their pushrod predecessors. The 2.7 is a smaller engine with only main bearing diameter in common.

I’m a fan of the Chrysler 3.8. Our van has one, which I’d never seen before and I’d only tested the 3.3’s. Needless to say I was impressed by the power difference, especially compared to the others. Nice and torquey, plenty of cruising power, and smooth.

7 years later with 175k on the clock, it’s been (knock on wood) rock solid.

Even though the new Chrysler Pentastar is a fantastic engine, I do mourn the loss of the Mopar 60 degree pushrod v6 engines: the 3.3 (EGA) and 3.8 (EGH).

These engines were the backbone of the Mopar product line from 1990 to 2010, powering the last decendants of the K-Car line (Dynasty, New Yorker, NY 5th, Imperial), Town and County/Voyager/Caravan minivans, Jeep Wranglers, Pacificas.

So many parts were interchangeable between the engines, even with updates to each for additional power or emissions requirements. My experience has been over two vans and one car with those engines-all lasting well over 200K with no major issues.

Fantastic engines in the cars/minivans but an abomination in the Wrangler. The torque curve is all wrong, and they are turning out to be the weak link in the ’07-’10 JKs. The Pentastar is a better performer but longevity is yet to be proven. The V6’s are acceptable as base engines, but a 4 cyl turbodiesel and a Hemi as options is what the Wrangler really needs.

I was so bummed when Jeep finally dropped the old straight six. It was inevitable, of course, but still a downer. My brother has a ’10 Grand Cherokee with the “minivan engine” and it seems perfectly OK, but I’d like it so much better with a 4.0!

Seems to me that there are basic engines that could have soldiered on and been out there today. Some things needed changed. The 53 chevy which came back in 54 IIRC with the biggest change being the insert bearings and full pressure oil system. Not much change but otoh a whole lot of change. A perfect example and I’m sure there are a lot better examples within the average lifetime.

Lubrication and fuel intake seem to be the biggest thing. Computerized stuff. Updates to an ancient engine make a new one. The 3800 makes a perfect example. I see no place outside of power generation or farm machinery where flatheads make any sense. I am unsure why ICE/electric didn’t take over other than resistance to change especially in urban vehicles. I do think that many of the changes made were for the sake of change. Sell the shiny new toy.

Toyota’s R-series really did run for seemingly forever, with many evolutions and displacements along the way. I believe it started with the original Crown back in 1955 and ran all the way into the 90’s Hilux pickup and 4runners.

And the last of those engines were sold in Australia in 2002 production cars, they stockpiled them ahead of the end of production. It got a good send off though, there was a 5.6L stroker version with 335 horsepower.

The VW engine looks so much like the 90 hp 1.8L four in my 1985 VW Passat Variant beater I’ve recently bought for cargo duty. I attest to its durability, after 350 000 kms of mileage without any major repairs it is still in relatively good condition and ready for at least another 100 000 or more. Modern VW turbocharged engines with aluminum blocks routinely develop serious issues after as little as about 200 000 kms.

Being 26 years old, I also often prefer elder, time-proven designs. Chain driven camshaft vs. timing belt, cable throttle linkage versus electronic control, double-wishbone vs. McPherson struts, solid rear axle vs. IRS and so on so forth. Miss all that stuff on newer cars. Wouldn’t like to have a carburetter on my daily driver though, but Throttle Body Injection would be just fine, thanks.

It seems that overcomplication became quite a problem with more recent generations of European and Japanese cars. Many European manufacturers also push turbocharged engines anywhere they can, while IMO they are more suitable for specific performance-oriented applications rather than regular passenger cars. Strangely enough, in Russia you just can’t purchase the 2 liter Jetta – only 1.6 or turbocharged 1.4, and most cars in stock are 1.4’s and DSG. With this engine available and a real hydromech automatic transmission, not DSG, I would’ve seriously considered the Jetta to replace my previous car which used to be ’07 Ford Mondeo. And yes, it becomes more and more difficult, too, to find a brand new car with “real” automatic transmission, not automated manual or variator (I’m driving stick shift anyway, but still).

I have nothing against high-tech stuff as a whole, but still believe that many, or even most, people just do not need such levels of sophistication in their cars. There is a limit to any technology, after reaching which it is inadvisable to develop it any further without serious necessity, as the result becomes increasingly complicated/unreliable/costly with too few redeeming qualities or significant improvements over previous level of technology. There has been such necessity for, e.g., aircraft piston engines, but for regular passenger cars ? I seriously doubt it…

Old designs are often good not because they are old, but because they were created with a different design philosophy in mind. Many of them were surprisingly rational and may tell today engineers a lot about doing more with less. This approach can be duplicated in modern products as well.

By the way, this is a major reason why people still buy Ladas here, despite them being priced not much below foreign built competition today and quality replacement parts only barely cheaper, too – they are more low-tech and therefore a whole lot cheaper and easier to maintain and repair, without glitches associated with direct fuel injection, double-clutch ‘boxes, variator transmission and other high-tech stuff.

The reason for the proliferation of turbos on European petrol engines is largely due to the E.U.’s fleet-average CO2 standards. It’s easier to get good numbers on the standardized test regimens with a small-displacement turbo than with a bigger normally aspirated engine.

Of course, that doesn’t necessarily translate into real-world economy, but unless buyers get mad enough that they sue charging that the numbers are misleading (which happens occasionally), that isn’t manufacturers’ first priority. The fines for failing to meet the CO2 targets are quite hefty and if a large manufacturer shrugs them off and passes them along to customers, it sends a message to regulators that the penalties are not sufficiently punitive.

Strangely enough, in Russia you just can’t purchase the 2 liter Jetta – only 1.6 or turbocharged 1.4, and most cars in stock are 1.4′s and DSG.

The old 2 liter may only be made in Mexico, where US market Jettas are built. US and Mexican gas engine VWs also use a conventional Aisin built 6 speed automatic, instead of the DSG. When I look at the German VW web site, I only see the DSG offered, so the US getting the Aisin may be due to US preference for a conventional automatic, or ease of importing transmissions from Japan.

Like others have pointed out, the latest European craze with small displacement turbo engines has a lot to do with CO2-related taxes and high fuel prices. Additionally, in many EU countries, we must pay are exorbitant yearly registration taxes for engines with large displacement and high horsepower ratings.
Slap a turbocharger on a small engine (1.2 – 1.6 liter) and you have killed two (or three) birds with one stone: more horsepower with the same displacement and also way more torque (especially low-end) which is good for acceleration and general responsiveness of the engine.
‘The third bird’ is lower fuel consumption which lowers Co2 figures and thus taxation upon new vehicle purchase but is of course also welcome for lowering the owner’s fuel bills. Fuel efficiency comes not just from small displacement but also because of the better torque mentioned above which enables higher gearing of the transmission, for lower rpms especially at motorway speeds (added bonus: less engine noise). Whereas most n/a petrol engines in typical Europen cars usually ran at 4000 rpm or more at 130 kmh (cca 80 mph), newer high-torque turbos usually need less than 3000 rpm for the same speed, making for a much more relaxed higway cruising.

I was skimming this while at work, and the AMC 6 is the first thing that came to mind. The basic design dates back to the 50s, and ran right up thru ’06 in 4.0L form. Fantastic engines, and a far cry better than that 3.8L turd (great in the cars/vans at least) that they used to replace it.

Im not a fan of v6 engines to start with, but they have their place–yeoman duty in sedans, minivans and crossovers. Ma Mopar should’ve kept the 4.0, stroked it out a bit, upgraded the cylinder head with a crossflow, OHC design as a base engine for the Jeeps and Ram. An alternate design could have upgraded to DOHC 24v and allowed for twin turbos in a 2 seat sportscar/roadster. Inline sixes make a better platform for performance applications, IMHO.

I would’ve loved that, but unfortunately they’d probably have ran into the same problem GM did with their (awesome) Atlas engines – there’s only so many modern platforms that can accommodate an inline six, nearly all of them are fullsize trucks, and a huge percentage of fullsize truck buyers want a V8 even if it’s only for the sake of having a V8.

Which version? The 258 was under square while the 4.0 are over square. Since pretty much the only thing that changed was the bore and stroke that means you can make your own version of the Mexican VAM built 282 (4.6l) by sticking the 258 crank and rods with 4.0 pistons in a 4.0 block.

When you say engine longevity I must think of the Mitsubishi 4D56 engine, but in a more positive sense than the mentioned G63 engine installed in so many chinese cars today. More than 30 years in the market, the once indirect non-turbo diesel engine with ~75HP, is now a proven, reliable and up-to-date CRDI engine with 178HP, and a variable geometry turbo. You can see it working under hardest conditions in thousands of Mitsu-utes (L-200/Triton) around the world for farmers, mining companies, etc., but also for “normal” users like me. Sold in Asia, Africa, South- and Central America, Europe (also EU) and Australia, fulfilling all current emmission standards, having newest engines as competitors (Toyota & Nissan utes). I hope they keep building it for many more years!

Aren’t these related to the 4G5x engines? I know that the blocks were pretty solid, but I know that they had issues with timing chain tensioners and cracking heads in earlier models. It’s good to know that it fared better as a diesel. From what you mentioned, it has a comparable life-span to the Mazda RF diesel

The Buick 3800 was really a great motor in its final years. I had a 2008 Buick as a loaner when my Pontiac Wave was getting its six week engine replacement and the low end torque was great. Alas, more modern OHC designs are even better.

The Honda J series V-6 deserves a mention. Great motors, reliable, flexible and powerful, they have been around since 1996, almost 19 years and are still going strong and keeping up with their competition. The are even used as outboard on boats.

The Cash-for-Clunkers program from a half dozen years ago certainly didn’t help matters any.

While I realize they were inanimate objects, it was certainly sad for mechanically inclined types who have an appreciation for automotive engineering to watch as what could have been useful to someone was senselessly destroyed. One of the most gut-wrenching videos was seeing a Jeep Cherokee fed the concoction (automotive engine ‘poison’, as it were) and then watch as it valiantly tried to keep running.

Don’t even get me started that waste of space piece of legislation. True, not everyone loves old cars as we do. But consider the facts: This took a LOT of perfectly useable iron of the streets. Even if something was ‘polluting’ as it were…most vehicles running badly can be made emissions compliant with a little work. To lower income buyers, this was a total screw job. All it did was jack up the prices of used cars and destroy perfectly good rides…many of which were likely rare and/or desireable. And in the end, there wasn’t even a stipulation that you had to buy an AMERICAN car. All this right before the bailout.

As soon as I saw this, my immediate question was why cant I just keep the money that’s stolen from me in the form of income taxes and apply that towards the purchase of whatever Detroit-sourced vehicle I want? Costs the taxpayers nothing, and gives the big 3 the shot in the arm they need. AND that would’ve meant a Challenger R/T for me.

The most idiotic thing about C4C was that all it did was put cash into the hands of the manufacturers (of whatever country). The street price of new cars didn’t change at all; it just meant all the big cash on the hood went away since it was being paid for by the federal government instead of the manufacturers. Before C4C, you could get the same car for the same price, and keep your old car.

C4C just meant you paid the same price, but you had to give up your old car, too (which was subsequently destroyed) in the process. Besides the manufacturers, the only ones who made out were the wrecking yards who got reimbursed for all the cars they destroyed.

As pointed out, C4C unnecessarily destroyed lots of perfectly usable old car parts (mainly the engines), as well as jacked up the price of the now much smaller pool of used cars.

The destroying of the engines was so ridiculously asinine It’s hard to even fathom. So in order to get rid of these “clunkers” that HAD TO be able to run and drive to the dealership they fill the car with liquid glass and run it at WOT until it goes boom? So much for the “green” aspect of the farce.

Did I miss the Chrysler 225 Slant Six or 318 V8 in the comments? If not, they were both great engines that continued to be built long after their forbears were initially built. I have a 318 with a fully functioning Lean Burn in my ’84 Fifth Avenue that runs great and gets decent mileage for a car of its time. They were used in the cars right up until ’89! (even later in the pickups!)

I get what you are saying regarding the GM 3800 V6. It was a damn fine engine and the only issues the Series II version had were cracking upper intakes and lower intake gaskets. The upper intake was easy to replace and once you replaced the composite/plastic lower intake gaskets with the revised GM metal ones(which should have been there in the first place) all was good. The later Series III had all those upgrades. I would get 25-27 mpg on the highway with my 2005 LeSabre.

Now the DOHC 3.4l, I would disagree with your assessment regarding it being a classic. It was a rubbish engine which was a royal pain in the back end to do any repairs on it and was so damn unreliable. I never understood its point. The same year this POS was offered, GM offered a supercharged 3800 V6 so this engine could have been used in the Monte Carlo/Lumina instead of the 3.4l DOHC.

The shop I worked at, while in school charged double the hourly shop rate for repairs to the 3.4l DOHC in the hopes the car and its owner would find another shop as nobody wanted to work on the thing.

Now as for a classic engine that was the Ford 3.0l Vulcan engine which was in most Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable from 1986-2007(yes they offered a 4th gen Taurus as late as 2007, it was a fleet car offering) and which was last used in the 2008 Ranger. Reliable, easy to work on and parts cheap and plentiful. Unlike the companion 3.8l (aka the headgasket eater), and the leaks alot/hard to work on 3.0l DOHC. If you see a 1986-1995 Taurus on the road still, it most likely has the Spock engine in it.

He’s not saying that the “Dual Twin Cam” 3.4l V6 was a classic, only that it was one of many different versions of the GM 60-degree V6. It belongs to the same engine family as the Citation V6, the ubiquitous 3.1l/3100/3400 V6s, the Turbo Grand Prix V6 and the more recent “High Value” engine that was still being built until recently.

I don’t know, a guy at work sustained a broken foot in a fairly minor crash in an older forward control van. When there are much better alternatives available (even second-hand) I wouldn’t buy an Express.

Also – we can’t be forgetting about this classic engine. The Jeep 4.0 straight-6 was introduced in 1987 for the XJ Cherokee, as a replacement for the unreliable Chevy 2.8 V-6 that AMC was using as a stopgap before the 4.0 was ready for public consumption.

Others here can fill in the information about the 4.0 if needed. This was a long-lasting motor. Wasn’t it based on the old AMC 199 from the ’60s?

The 4.0 was just a change to the bore and stroke of the 199/232/258. They switched it from a small bore long stroke engine designed for low rpm and high torque (at least the 258) to something that could spin as fast as a modern engine at the sacrifice of low end torque. The plus is that it allows you to replicate the VAM 282 without having to import one from Mexico. Take a 4.0 block and stuff a crank and rods from a 258 in it and depending on if you bore it or not you’ve got a 4.6 or larger straight 6 that has loads of bottom end torque and valve diameters to make it spin pretty fast.

I seem to remember some things better than others. Sources I read when we had another article in this vein said it started as a 232 in 1964. I don’t know anything about the 199 but think it might have been the prior ohv six that was in the Nash. Just checked and another article said 232/1964. It’s been here a long time. Hated to see it go. I owned a 258 and liked the characteristics.

1964bler

Posted July 29, 2014 at 3:13 PM

The 199 was a smaller displacement version of the 232 used in base Americans and Classics. The Nash engine was a 196 (actually 195.6) and its origins date back to 1941. It was last used in the 1965 American.

I loved the 4 litre six. It was basically unkillable and made classic pushrod six sounds. In the later Grande Cherokees it was a little over-taxed however. When they reached 200,000 km we did a lot of exhaust manifold welding and injector replacements. We had a few with cracked heads, mostly from gunning it on the Coquihalla Highway, which older engine designs often can’t handle.

Just realised the motor in my Hillman Minx had a long if fairly unremarkable lifespan from the 1390cc 1956 debut in the Hillman Minx thru the SuperMinx and later Hunter range it was still being made in Iran until it couldnt get past emissions and got replaced in the Paykan by a Peugeot engine.

You can buy a brand spanking new Hyster/Yale forklift with an LPG Mazda F2 2.2 liter. An engine not seen in a passenger car sold in the USA since 1992. Having seen them first hand, it is literally an identical engine as my ’91 626, just with an LP injection system. Makes me happy.

It’s good to know that the Mazda F series is still going strong! I had a the 8v FE in my former 626, and it was an excellent motor. I’m still waiting to find an 88-91 626 GT hatch with the f2t. I wonder if the FE DOHC head bolts onto those?

Not sure on that one. It would be cool if it did! The FE DOHC and F2T were fairly close in power numbers, but even normally aspirated the FE DOHC produced more power. I’d say find a hatchback LX like I have and drop an FE in there and turbo it up! I respect and like the FE, but I love my F2’s. N/A or turbo.

Well you have to remember that the F2T was SEVERELY underrated from the factory. The made a lot closer to 190-195HP from the crank stock. The rated 145 was actually the horsepower at the wheels. I’m seriously going to look into an FE DOHC head swap onto an F2t, though. It’d turn the car into an animal. The first generation Sportage used the FE DOHC, but it was obviously a longitudinal layout.

C. Ciolli

Posted July 31, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Longitudinally oriented heads on a transverse engine should be an easy modification with the aid of a decent machine shop!

I’m surprised no one has mentioned the Lamborghini V12, made from 1963 in the 350GT all the way to 2012 with the Murcielago. That’s almost 50 years with the same intial design.

I didn’t get to search it much, but did Porsche use the same flat-6 design on all the 911s? If so, then that was quite a while with the air cooled ones and (not sure if a different engine design entirely) now the water cooled and also the other current models.

What about the BMC A-series engine? Made from 1951 to 2000, most famously powering the classic Mini. Nice torquey engine, reasonably reliable–at least if you keep to the maintenance schedule–and offering pretty good performance for the time period and displacement. It also powered the Morris Minor from 1952, and the Sprite/Midget (until the Triumph 1500 took over), not to mention numerous other BMC, BL and Rover cars.

Oh–and it is highly modifiable. And has a distinct low, guttural growl (at least in my 1962 Morris Cooper). A bit baritone–like Tom Baker or something. It sounds much larger than its modest 997 cc’s would suggest.

Thanks for the look-back at all those fine engines. I’ve had several with the 3800, a couple with the Jeep 4.0 and several with the Ford 5.0. One of the posters is correct. That engine started in 1962 as a 221cid, bored to 260, stroked to 289 and stroked again to 302.

I tend to agree the 232 was the genesis of the 4.0 Jeep engine, although I recall the 199. I understand Mopar offers a crate engine with 258-type innards that makes 265 hp and 280 lb ft of torque. (I do think, however, the smoothest V8s I owned were the Buick nailhead.

The Prizm five-door did not sell well at all and they’re very rare. Ditto the GSi, so finding a GSi hatch would be a rara avis indeed. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the ones that were sold later ended up having their engines cannibalized and put in an AE86.

I am way late on this sadly, so it’ll probably get lost, but I feel like I must defend the Jetta S.

I’m leasing a 2014 Jetta S 5-speed manual with that ancient coffee-grinder 2.0-cylinder engine. I initially chose it for one reason – it was the cheapest brand new car available in 2014. $195 per month… pocket change!

I was so fed up with my (used) car hobby that, at first, I saw it as an appliance. But I’ve ended up loving it. Driving a 2014 Jetta S is like driving a brand new 1998 model car with but with all the necessary equipment of a 2014 model. It has tiny A-pillars, a flat old-fashioned dashboard, huge windows, and three-box styling. Yet it has an AUX plug for my Ipod, a million airbags, and the suspension, steering, and body integrity are firmly 2010s Germanic.

It looks so “old” people are surprised when they hear it is a 2014 car. I remember opening the hood upon my initial test drive and wondering if I was in the year 1993. There was so much SPACE. No plastic engine cover, no extra accessories, just a gosh darn 4-cylinder basic engine. Visually, this is the most honest dated sedan you can buy today, inside, outside, and under the hood. It is a 2014 Plymouth Valiant.

The manual transmission is excellent. Steering and handing are firm in the German idiom and the ride is incredibly comfortable – it is easily the best-riding compact on the market today and I’ve driven almost all of them. I cringe at the thought of driving this car with an automatic, though. I find no lack of power in the city, and I get 27 MPG driving mildly aggressively. 42 MPG highway if you go the speed limit. That’s as good as a hybrid! On the highway though, it’s deathly slow, but my driving is 90% city so IDGAF personally.

The car is just charming in basic-ness. It’s traditional in all the right ways, and modern in only the ways you need. Want power? Nope. Want people to know you have a new car? Want an excellent (but slow) sedan for the price of a TV cable subscription? There’s a manual transmission Jetta S waiting for you at your VW dealer.

Thanks for telling the truth about the Jetta 2.0L. It is completely fine around town. Folks who had the engine back in the 80s with the 3-speed A/T are bound to have some complaints. But with the stick or 4-A/T it was great in the city. No need to rev it hard but it sounded OK if you did.

So much torquier than those first gen 16-valve engines, which sucked with an A/T.

I mentioned in one of the older comments that I’d find it refreshing in a way to own a Jetta S. Just an honest engine…no fancy crap. Also, as the former owner of an ’87 Audi 5000S with an automatic (which did just fine on the highways with “modern” cars, thank you very much =) ) I’m pretty sure that the power rating wouldn’t be much of an issue to me. I’m glad that they kept the 2.0 around even after the refresh. I’m actually very surprised that they did.

Driving a 2014 Jetta S is like driving a brand new 1998 model car with but with all the necessary equipment of a 2014 model. It has tiny A-pillars, a flat old-fashioned dashboard, huge windows, and three-box styling. Yet it has an AUX plug for my Ipod, a million airbags, and the suspension, steering, and body integrity are firmly 2010s Germanic.

That’s what I like about all VeeDubs: their old school design. No crazy wedge styling, so I can see out the back. No outer space effects on the dash, just simple, easy to read white on black round insturments. As you say, the layout in my 2014 Jetta wagon is like my 1998 Civic, itself an exemplar of simple effective design, a concept that Honda has lost.

Most people want an automatic. The Jetta S I drove had the auto, and the engine was in agony as it labored to haul the car around. I can’t imagine flogging an engine like that routinely will do anything to help durability.

The 2.0 was fine in a 90s Golf. I tried out a Golf before I bought the Civic in 98 and liked the engine fine. It would be fine in a car that size today, like if VW gave us the Mexican/Brazilian built Gol, which is a foot shorter and significantly lighter than a Golf.

Check out the pic on the German VW website to get an idea how much the Golf has grown in 40 years.

Great article —
The 2litre (1991cc) Citroen 4 lasted from the beginning of the Traction in 1934 till the CX in 1978 — the 2.4 litre version even lasted until the end of the CX in 1990. Even better than the Ford flat-head.

The 2-litre AC six also had legs: produced from 1919 till 1963!

There’s also the Renault “Cleon-fonte” — over 27m made from 1962 to 2004.

And last but not least, they been making the Rolls-Royce/Bentley V8 since 1959, and that one is still going.

You know, I was just trying to get information on that Citroen engine, but all I could find were bits and pieces scattered throughout the internet. I never knew that it lasted in the CX until the end of production, I always assumed that they replaced it with the same 2.0/2.2 that the later Peugeot 505’s got later on in their lives. You learn something new every day, I suppose.

I’m not one to really mourn the passing of an engine. the exception to that being the Rover V8, based on the Buick 215, and the Cosworth DFV racing engine. For me, THE best sounding engine ever.

I wholely embrace the downsided turbocharged engines that are becoming the standard here in the UK and Europe. My particular favorite being Ford’s 3cyl 1 litre turbo. Broad spread of power and torque, characterful note. The downside is the economy. It performs amazingly in EU lab tests, but poorly in real conditions. However, I’d enjoy it for what it is, and not worry about the economy. If you did want that, then it can be tuned accordingly via the aftermarket.

The internet keboard experts/bores (not on this here website, that I can see) moan about its highly tuned state affecting reliability. However same experts/bores wax lyrical about the BMW V10, itself a highly tuned motor.

My daily driver is powered by the Ford Lynx 1.8TDCI engine, a design that goes back to the early 1980’s. It means I can do basic servicing myself

Sort of. I think the Ka engine was the Valencia derivative introduced on the Escort late in 1986 — 74.0 x 75.5mm versus 81 x 63mm for the old Kent 1300 crossflow. The Valencia series, created for the first Fiesta, was a derivative of the Kent as well, so it was still a descendant, just a more distant one.

I had a 1.6 Escort Finesse run out model for a few years. I once left the oil cap off and drove to the petrol station only noticing when all this steamy stuff started coming out when I stopped at the pump. Luckily I found the oil cap in the road when I got back home. Spent a while cleaning the block with paper towels afterward.

On the same theme I had a Chrysler Neon that I bought ex demo and had serviced by the dealer. I didn’t check anything “because it was new”. One christmas I opened the bonnet and the oil cap was sitting there on the block…3 months after the last service. I thought I must be insane because the oil should have been spewed everywhere but it wasnt. The Neon developed chronic piston-slap when cold pretty soon after that. Which may be a coincidence.

The key words are: development and economic growth. Engineers and designers must earn their sallaries. The industry has to boost the incomes. Sometimes the newly developed (smaller) engines isn’t “better” in every aspects then the earlier bigger ones. For example my old 1980 Pontiac 4.9 Litre V8 with four barrel carburetor and with 3-speed automatic transmission had lower fuel consumption (~10,5 litre/100km in mixed conditions) than the 1997 SEFI 3.4 Litre V6 with 4 speed-automatic (~12,6 litre/100km mix). So what’s the point in this?

As a proud owner of one MZR-CD equipped Mazda 3, I can assure you that this engine is borderline too torquey even for this advanced chassis 🙂 What it would do to a ’84 Tempo, I would actually like to see 🙂

I’d go back a little farther and say that the Mopar 225 Slant six was the the most reliable engine built in the ’60s & ’70s and also worked great in the the Dodge trucks of the ’80s.
I’d like to put one in a new Dodge Charger or Chrysler 300, but either put the 4 barrel carb manifold on it or change it over to FI. Might not be the fastest, but it would help bring back a reliable image to Dodge!